Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings

From:

Richard M. Stallman

Subject:

Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings

Date:

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:31:21 -0400

I would think that plural would be OK for any plural entity (i.e. collection
;-)). (The function case is a bit exceptional, or indirect - it is
essentially an iterator that generates the elements of a plural entity.)
Sorry, you haven't changed my mind about it. We can use `collection'
if we can't find something better, but it isn't very good.
I don't have time to check the guidelines right now, but shouldn't a boolean
argument's name end in "-p"? That is, wouldn't "must-match-p" be
conventional (and clearer)?
No. The `-p' convention is for functions (predicates) only.